All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving unresolved a significant question regarding class-action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The question presented (and left unanswered by the majority) in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) v. Davis was whether a federal court may certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured class members. The dismissal has sparked considerable debate, particularly highlighted by Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, which provides a compelling argument against the court’s dismissal.

On Tuesday, June 10, the House Committees on Agriculture and Financial Services both favorably reported to the House H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act (as amended). Both committees gave overwhelmingly bipartisan support for the bill with the Committee on Agriculture voting 47-6 and the Committee on Financial Services voting 32-19. Both…

This article was republished in insideARM on June 17, 2025.

On May 22, Illinois House Bill 3352 passed the Illinois legislature and now awaits Governor JB Pritzker’s signature. This bill amends the Illinois Collection Agency Act to provide an individual a way to avoid liability for a coerced debt. HB 3352 defines coerced debt as a debt incurred due to fraud, duress, intimidation, threat, force, coercion, undue influence, or non-consensual use of the debtor’s personal identifying information as a result of domestic abuse, sexual assault, exploitation, or human trafficking.

Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) submitted several regulatory proposals to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Among the rules under consideration are those related to loan originator (LO) compensation and discretionary mortgage servicing, governed by the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X). Additionally, the CFPB is reviewing its “larger participant” rules, which define the scope of its supervisory authority over major players in the debt collection and consumer credit reporting sectors. These rules, currently in “prerule” status, are under scrutiny by the OMB.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified the expectations for furnishers when investigating consumer disputes under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In Suluki v. Credit One Bank, No. 23-721 (2d Cir. May 28, 2025), the Second Circuit emphasized that the FCRA requires furnishers to conduct reasonable, not perfect, investigations into disputed accounts. The opinion also cements the fact that summary judgment is possible — and appropriate — when a furnisher conducts a reasonable investigation of a credit dispute.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all down for the month. Still, everything except filings under the FDCPA were up over 2024 with CFPB complaints being up 100.4%!

New York has included a “Buy-Now-Pay-Later Act” as part of its broader budget legislation for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. Encapsulated in Article 14-B, the Act aims to regulate the burgeoning market of buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) lenders but has raised concerns by its overreach and seemingly unequal treatment of national and state banks.

We are pleased to share with you our latest publication, “Navigating Change: First 100 Days under the Trump Administration,” authored by our Digital Assets + Blockchain team. This retrospective examines the pivotal developments in the digital assets industry during the initial phase of the Trump administration.